I understand the reasons it was put in place, but this isn't the turn of the millennium anymore and almost no one is browsing this site on an 28.8kbps modem with a 640 by 480 screen. I think it's very outdated, and I don't think there's anyone who's going to find it harder to browse if it's increased. I often find it difficult to accurately describe a thread I'm posting in 60 characters or less, and I for one would appreciate it if the limit was upped so we could fit more into the thread title.

The article I wanted to post that caused me to start this thread was this. The shortest descriptive title I can think of is "Republicians worried they would be discriminated against in Obama's healthcare rationing panels", but that's way over 60 characters so I have a choice of not posting it or posting it under a title that doesn't accurately describe the article.

I don't see why this would actually annoy anyone, well except maybe Knife. As long as the thread title is properly, but not overly descriptive. But honestly, the board has gotten along just fine with bullet points, sarcasm and abbreviations.

"Rs worry about discrimination under Ds Health Care rationing" There you go, 60, and you still get the point of the thread across.

P.S. You are awesome man.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.Blank Yellow (NSFW)

If it is a problem (and I'm not saying it is, I've rarely if ever found that my intended title broke the limit), then I don't see much harm in raising it to, let's say, a round one hundred. Why not add a poll, and see what percentage of users actually think this needs to be changed?

But unless a big chunk of the board membership takes issue with the status quo here, I'd advise filing this under "not a big priority."

I don't think I am the only one who acceses the board from mobile devices. The current character limit is for some reason a very elegant fit on these tiny screens. I would hate to see that convenience go away.

Don't know about everyone, but when I was in school, there was a skill we learned called "summation".

Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -MarcaoSG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

If it weren't for the growing number of people reading the site on iPhones and Blackberries, I'd be in favor of lifting the limit. As it stands, though, I think it should stay put.

Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963X-Ray Blues

But more on topic - regardless of devices, I thinking keeping to 60 characters or less is a good idea because, as noted, they're titles, not mini articles. Most titles are far fewer than the maximum, thus I do not see a problem with the limit as it stands.

A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Dominus Atheos wrote:I understand the reasons it was put in place, but this isn't the turn of the millennium anymore and almost no one is browsing this site on an 28.8kbps modem with a 640 by 480 screen. I think it's very outdated, and I don't think there's anyone who's going to find it harder to browse if it's increased. I often find it difficult to accurately describe a thread I'm posting in 60 characters or less, and I for one would appreciate it if the limit was upped so we could fit more into the thread title.

The article I wanted to post that caused me to start this thread was this. The shortest descriptive title I can think of is "Republicians worried they would be discriminated against in Obama's healthcare rationing panels", but that's way over 60 characters so I have a choice of not posting it or posting it under a title that doesn't accurately describe the article.

That would make testing more fun, they could have whole arguments in topic headlines.

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok

But more on topic - regardless of devices, I thinking keeping to 60 characters or less is a good idea because, as noted, they're titles, not mini articles. Most titles are far fewer than the maximum, thus I do not see a problem with the limit as it stands.

Not only read- I've banned people here from my Googlephone.

And I think the limit should stay, if only to force people to apply some creativity to thread titles.

Sarevok wrote:I don't think I am the only one who acceses the board from mobile devices. The current character limit is for some reason a very elegant fit on these tiny screens. I would hate to see that convenience go away.

I occasionally log on from my Palm LifeDrive, so the low-bandwidth option non-sucks for me.

The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant

RedImperator wrote:If it weren't for the growing number of people reading the site on iPhones and Blackberries, I'd be in favor of lifting the limit. As it stands, though, I think it should stay put.

I should really talk to Starglider about some of the code changes that can be made to make the site (style 4 at least) more accessible on mobile devices. This said, different display options for mobile devices is pretty easy (especially for iphones, where you can drop in some code and blam looks different on iPhones) and doesn't need to affect people using a computer at all.

If you can describe exactly what you want and it isn't a huge change, I can most likely do it. However from experience I suspect the problem will be convincing Mike to spend the time merging and testing the changes. How about you do that first and if he's prepared to do so then I will write the code.